Doesn't this create the possibility of a fork? Those on the 0.8.1 client will build micro transactions into the blockchain, but the 0.8.2 client won't relay those transactions?

No. according to the description this doesn't affect in any way which transactions are or are not valid in a block.

It changes which transactions an unmodified bitcoind/bitcoin-qt client will relay on the network.

Miners can put as many non-standard transaction in their blocks as they want, but without further modification the reference client will not broadcast or relay those transactions to the miners.

There's been a patch floating around for a while that removes the minimum fee needed to relay transactions; I expect something similar will exist for this change.

Got it. So, if I wanted, I could create a pool for micro transactions? Anyone wanting to send a micro transaction would add my node to their list and my pool would process those transactions and they would be incorporated into the blockchain when the pool found a block and the rest of the network would honor those transactions. Is that a correct understanding?

Got it. So, if I wanted, I could create a pool for micro transactions? Anyone wanting to send a micro transaction would add my node to their list and my pool would process those transactions and they would be incorporated into the blockchain when the pool found a block and the rest of the network would honor those transactions. Is that a correct understanding?Y

Yes, unless there's been a large change to the block validation rules that I am not aware of.

Got it. So, if I wanted, I could create a pool for micro transactions? Anyone wanting to send a micro transaction would add my node to their list and my pool would process those transactions and they would be incorporated into the blockchain when the pool found a block and the rest of the network would honor those transactions. Is that a correct understanding?

You can do that.

Mike Hearn supported making nodes advertise the fact that they were implementing this change, which would have allowed DNS seeds and similar things to be setup to find nodes that would still relay small transactions, but that has not been done.

What you're looking for is Freenet. Aside from the anonymity (which is neither needed or maybe even desired for blockchain storage) Freenet is a large operating content-addressed, redundant distributed filesystem with some unique properties such as good resistance to data loss even under the condition of nodes coming and going randomly, with no explicit coordination or configuration. The Freenet developers are aware of Bitcoin and are aware of how Freenet and the potential synergy between the two projects, and I think they only thing that's missing is interest for some type of collaboration to happen is some programmers on the Bitcoin side to take an interest in them.

I think it show the biggest weakness with bitcoin that Bitcoin protocol is depended on one client and this client is rules by a central committee!! the solution to this problem is that other bitcoin client like Electrum supporting maining .

I see now. So the official client and support network will not recognize microtransactions, but the protocol will still allow miners to deal with them. Only highly optimized miners will profit from accepting them.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.

the satoshi spam is not a threat, it is a view of the future payment value and volume once bitcoin exceeds $£1000 each. Gavin should be looking for ways to make the block chain cope, not ignore!

oh well there goes any chances of people buying chewing gum with bitcoin, once bitcoin reaches a £$1,000 a coin. all those vending machine companies better give up trying to make bitcoin work. all of those dollar stores might as well give up thinking bitcoin is the best route away from credit card fee's.

anyone that is thinking of selling items for $£1 and want to give a merchant/shoppingcart system 1% of your dollar. better get some new systems inplace or soon the only payments u can do are in large numbers not small handfulls of satoshis.

and for all of them penny per click website advertising revenue companies.. looks like your stuck with FIAT or off the chain book keeping with batch payments, instead of instant payments

So: if you have a better suggestion for fixing the problem of new users wasting lots of time gathering tiny drips and drabs of bitcoins, and then getting upset when they can't spend them (because it costs more in fees that they are worth), I'm open to suggestions.

RE: "what about when bitcoins are worth a million dollars apiece"

Umm, that's what the "un-hardcode TX_FEE constants" part is all about?

RE: trolling about Foundation setting the fee:

Go back under your rock, please. This pull request is the first step towards a market between miners (who want higher fees) and merchants/users (who want lower fees, but also want their transactions confirmed). Miners can already control what fees they accept, this pull lets users control (very clumsily, improvements on the road map) the fee they are willing to pay.

"The difference between a castle and a prison is only a question of who holds the keys."

I think there should be a minimal transaction fee of 0.001 bitcoins(or at least 0.0005) at this moment (may be smaller if the bitcoin price will rise) and if the transaction amount is less then this amount the transaction would not be possible.Otherwise somebody could attack the network with 100 million transactions every of 0.00000001 bitcoin.They are enough alt-coins for small transactions.

I think there should be a minimal transaction fee of 0.001 bitcoins(or at least 0.0005) at this moment (may be smaller if the bitcoin price will rise) and if the transaction amount is less then this amount the transaction would not be possible.Otherwise somebody could attack the network with 100 million transactions every of 0.00000001 bitcoin.They are enough alt-coins for small transactions.

Do people not realize that we've been dealing with this since the start of Bitcoin? This is what transaction fees are for. I don't care if you want to send a single Satoshi, it's no one else's business what kind of transactions you want to do as long as you pay for it.

The miner should determine what transaction fees they want to process. This minimum tx fee argument is counterproductive.

The problem is poor blockchain management, not dust. Dust is a valuable part of bitcoins. If it were not valued, it would not be used. The end user should be responsible for keeping their own ledger, if they so want to keep one, and parts of obsolete transaction blocks should be solved by the mining queue to auto-purge by date priority.